Dobbs and the future of self-determination in the UnitedStates of America
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24215/18522971e112Keywords:
abortion, self-determination, Dobbs, Roe, CaseyAbstract
On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that overturns the right to abortion. With Dobbs, SCOTUS decided to reverse a long history of precedents that regulated access to termination of pregnancy, which began with the mythical case Roe v. Wade in 1973. Despite the fact that the vast majority of legal academia presents Dobbs as an unprecedented ruling, we propose that the new precedent is only the last blow in a long chip-down strategy to dismantle the right to abortion that the Court has been sustaining since the '80s. We also propose to reconstruct their salient arguments, review their major controversies and analyze the consequences on the rights to autonomy and (non) reproduction, both in those latitudes and their possible projections towards ours.
Downloads
References
Atrey, S. (2022). Feminist constitutionalism: mapping a discourse in contestation. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moac029
Adams, G. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an Issue Evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 718–737.
Alito, S. J. (1985). Memorandum to the Solicitor General. Holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration Record Group 60, Department of Justice Files of the Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Charles Cooper, 1981-1985. Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists.
Álvarez, S. (2015). La autonomía personal y la autonomía relacional. Análisis Filosófico, XXXV(1),13-26.
Annas, G. J., Glantz, L. H. y Mariner, W. K. (1989). Brief for bioethicists for privacy as amicus curiae supporting appellees. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 15(2-3), 169–177.
Bella, T. (2022). Texas AG says he’d defend sodomy law if Supreme Court revisits ruling. Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/29/texas-sodomy-supreme-court-lawrence-paxton-lgbtq/
Cano, J. E. (2022). Quién(es) decide(n) la IVE. Nuevos contextos y viejos argumentos en el campo jurídico. Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, (26). https://doi.org/10.24215/18522971e099
Dworkin, R. (1993). Life's dominion: an argument about abortion and euthanasia. Harper Collins.
Feinberg, J. (1984). Harm to others. Oxford University Press.
Girgis, S. (2022). Dobbs’s history and the future of abortion and privacy law. SCOTUSblog https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/dobbss-history-and-the-future-of-abortion-and-privacy-law/
Greenhouse, L. y Siegel, R. B. (2012). Before Roe v. Wade: Voices that shaped the abortion debate before the Supreme Court's ruling. Yale Law School
Harman, E. (2003). The Potentiality Problem. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition,114(1/2), 173–198.
Iturrieta, Y. A (2022). Política de aborto en San Juan. Experiencias y desafíos a partir de su legalización. Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, (26). https://doi.org/10.24215/18522971e098
Jackson, C. (2022). The dangers of judicial cherry-picking. SCOTUSblog. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/the-dangers-of-judicial-cherry-picking/
Kelly, M., Levitt, M. y Dorning, C. (2022). With Roe overturned, LGBTQ activists worry same-sex marriage is next. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/02/1102491352/abortion-rights-Roe-wade-same-sex-marriage-obergefell-leaked-supreme-court
Kirk, E. y Skop, I. (2022). Why the Dobbs decision won’t imperil pregnancy-related medical care. SCOTUSblog. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/why-the-Dobbs-decision-wont-imperil-pregnancy-related-medical-care/
Murray, M. y Luker, K. (2015). Cases on reproductive rights and justice. Foundation Press.
Orrego-Hoyos, G., Carrera, M. L. y Saralegui Ferrante, N. (2020). Dicen que tuve un bebé. Siglo XXI Editores.
Roemer, R. (1971). Abortion Law Reform and Repeal: Legislative and Judicial Developments. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, 14(4), 1165–1180.
Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. En C. S. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and danger: Exploring female sexuality (pp. 267-319). Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Shivaram, D.(2022). Roe established abortion rights. 20 years later, Casey paved the way for restrictions. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/06/1096885897/Roe-established-abortion-rights-20-years-later-Casey-paved-the-way-for-restricti
Smulovitz, C. (2015). ¿Quién paga por los derechos en las provincias argentinas? El caso de las leyes de violencia familiar. Desarrollo Económico, 55(216), 155–185. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43894823
Truscott, J. y Feldman, A. (2022). Lengthier opinions and shrinking cohesion: Indications for the future of the Supreme Court. SCOTUSblog. https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/lengthier-opinions-and-shrinking-cohesion-indications-for-the-future-of-the-supreme-court/
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Paula Sagel
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Los autores/as conservan los derechos de autor y ceden a la revista el derecho de la primera publicación, con el trabajo registrado con la licencia de atribución, compartir igual, de Creative Commons, que permite a terceros utilizar lo publicado siempre que mencionen la autoría del trabajo y a la primera publicación en esta revista.
Derecho y Ciencias Sociales por Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Sociales se distribuye bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.
